About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
FBC 8
CNNW 7
CNN 6
CSPAN 4
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 37
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the talking points of susan rice saw in the next 48 hours before she appeared on the sunday talk shows said it was mob violence and video. what do you make of that, tucker? >> this was the big revelation of the day as far as i can tell. it's not clear that susan rice didn't see the original talking points, but the administration conceded today all, but conceded, said, flat-out, we know that al-qaeda was involved, and the term al-qaeda was listed in the origin tell againintelligen and taken out. and the administration says al-qaeda or affiliates classified information, so they had to be scrubbed from what was given to congress. and even if you accept that's a legitimate operating procedure, you have to acknowledge that they've intentionally misled, susan rice-- >> who is they? >> susan rice, but clearly the cia knew this. it's inconceivable that the american ambassador to the united nations was sent out on television with totally incomplete information, with talking points that had been basically scrubbed and having no knowledge of what was originally in them. >> is it clear that susan rice
by the cia and what was ultimately embraced to am bass sore susan rice. what we mean here is there was a review process and an editing process in which the emphasis on extremist groups, al-qaida, an sar al says sharia was deemphasized in the second version used by ambassador rice. at what point did the former cia director believe that this was an act of terrorism or an act of extremists? a s*r member of the committee told fox a sort time ago was what the director laid off was an evolving picture on intel kwrepbs. >> he reinforced the facts -- in the first 24 hours he felt at that point, or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film. he clarified that after -- after more information came in there was not a protest. >> reporter: one lawmaker telling fox after the hearing that he did feel that there were discrepancies between the former cia director's statements today about what he said on september 14th, and the recollection of that lawmaker. let's listen. >> his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that th
not to make susan rice the next secretary of state, calling -- saying that she either willfully or incompetently misled the american public in the handling of the van ghazi matter. >> i would say that their understanding of the constitution and their role in conformations is illustrative of their overall general knowledge. i think this is a very difficult one for the president. he stood up for her in a press conference and said, might you have a problem is with me. he all but seemed to suggest that he would name her secretary of state. even if she is the best candidate, and there are many people would think she is not a, to take on that confirmation fight over the at the same time that you have all of these other things, from the fiscal clift to the middle east crisis, to take that on now is not the most responsible thing to do. >> is susan rice being scapegoats it? >> i did not take from the president's comments that he was necessarily going to nominate her. i did think he was saying to senator mccain and senator gramm, kemosabi and tonto, look, pick on someone your own size. t
's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it still was saying it's a spontaneous demonstration? >> i assume dish didn't talk to susan rice, i assume she received information and he was not a part of briefing susan rice. information coming together with a different agencies that were involved and had jurisdiction, giving information to susan rice or anyone else, including our committee. >> i was following that. you answered the question. >> he was the head of the
is is who exexunged the al qaeda terrorism line before it was given to susan rice and she was sent out on those five sunday morning talk shows to say no it was actually a film and a riot gone bad. so as you know there were a couple of senators who say that they have lost faith with susan rice. that she went out and said something misleading. but the president, at his first press conference since being reelected said, please, don't blame her, in fact, he went so far to say she had nothing to do -- knee knew nothing about benghazi. she had nothing to do with benghazi. here he is defending susan rice. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> so. >> okay. then why the heck did you send her out there? she knew nothing about what happened. petraeus was in washington. several other high ranking officials who knew what happened were in washington. if you want us to go after you, then
to the defense of susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, who just a few days after the attack as you recall said violence on the u.s. consulate in benghazi began as a spontaneous protest against an anti-islam film. two top-ranking republicans are vowing to block rice's nomination if she is picked to be the next secretary of state. the president firing back with a rare flash of anger. >> senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> white house correspondent dan lothian, live from washington this morning. it's really nice to see you, dan. >> good to see you. >> let's first talk about the fiscal cliff. the president said we could see a deal by next week. that may hinge on this issue with taxes. how are republicans responding to the president's remarks? >> well, you know, first of all, there does seem a willingness by republicans to find areas of agreement, to reach a compromise. but they are pushing back on the president's plan because they don't believe that a solution should lie in tax hikes for any americans, including the
economy. >> the president also making clear that he has susan rice's back. that's his ambassador, the embattled u.s. ambassador to the united nations. initially she said that that september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi began as a spontaneous protest against an anti-islam film. well, now two top-ranking republicans are vowing to block her nomination if, in fact, she is picked to be the next secretary of state. that had the president very anger. here's what he said. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> white house correspondent dan lothian is in washington, d.c., this morning. let's start first, dan, before we get to the ambassador, the embattled ambassador, let's start with taxes. >> well, yes. you know, republicans pushing back on the president yesterday, because they don't want to see taxes raised, even on wealthy americans, because they believe that that will stifle economic growth and will hit those people who are the job creators. at the same time, there does appear to be this willingness to
or not this president will go ahead with the nomination of susan rice, given all the revelations by david petraeus today before the senate and house. first want to bring you up-to-date on what is happening in the middle east and israel appears closer to a possible ground operation in gaza. the israelis have ordered up another 45,000 reservists. they are on standby now, and that is an additional 75,000 total reserves that are now massing on the border with gaza. the israelis are vowing to intensify there air strikes on the gaza strip, that after palestinian -- palestinian -- palestinian militants targeted tel aviv. , says no fired more than 450 rockets at israel over the past three days. at least 23 palestinians have been reported killed in the fighting along with three israelis. th violence straining israeli relations with egypt. the senate's prime minister, not its promise to the president, prime minister to gaza to show solidarity with the paestinians and to, some say, a broker truce. moments ago men yahoo called president obama to discuss options for the escalating the crisis. that is the latest ther
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
the killings in benghazi the u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice said what she said about the spontaneous reaction? >> well, i've always thought based on what we heard from the very start that there was a big disconnect between the information i thought i was looking at and what the president said yesterday they had. i thought the most interesting thing in the president's comments yesterday was that susan rice had all of the information they had and related all of that information. that just doesn't seem reasonable to me. if they did -- if that was all the information they had, i wonder why somebody at the white house wasn't asking more questions. and that may be the biggest question here as we go forward. >> are you with some of those republicans like senator mccain, senator lindsey graham who will do everything in their power to block her nomination as secretary of state if it goes forward? >> well, i think again, the question there is what did ambassador rice know? why is that what she knew? and why was she the person sent out to represent the administration? the presid
again. >> hey, joe. >> you know, susan rice, our u.n. ambassador, has been taking a lot of heat. john mccain, lindsey graham going after her for repeating what the president says was the intel that was available at the time. you're on the committee. can you tell us, was susan rice, from what you know, just repeating what was being told to everybody in washington at the time on what had happened in benghazi? >> well, here's what i think, joe. i think without question, i mean, you know, you've got guys storming a consulate with ak-47s, with rpgs and firing mortars. they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack. there wasn't any question about that. and why the white house didn't come out and say that immediately, i don't know. they tried to soften it somewhat with regard to it was a spontaneous action that stemmed from a protest. there was a question about whether protesters were there. and five days later, susan rice goes on tv and says that not only was it a protest, but it apparently stemmed from this trailer or this movie that had been shown. and very honestly by that point in time
.s. -- united nations ambassador susan rice for the benghazi response. here is what the president said. >> as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> okay. so it took senator john mccain about an hour to make it to the s senate floor to offer a response. >> that statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks that we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> seems like the testosterone-fueled rhetoric over benghazi is sort of getting out of control. former cia operative bob behr joins us this morning. good morning, bob. >> good morning. >> i want to make it clear to our viewers what lawmakers want to figure out. there are three separate hearings about to take place today. this is what they're trying to figure out. one, why didn't the united states increase security in libya? two, did the obama administration
.n. susan rice going to be secretary of state, that could be a very ugly confirmation hearing. and senator john kerry talked about as defense secretary, wolf? >> yeah, there's been reports that john kerry, who i always assumed wanted to be secretary of state could be the next secretary of defense leon panetta has made it clear he's ready to move on and go back to california after all these years in washington, former cia director, now the secretary of defense. i don't know how long that will last. but if kerry is nominated to be the secretary of defense, that does leave hillary clinton's job at the state department open. and susan rice was always -- at least i always believed she was the front-runner until those controversial comments she made about the benghazi killing of the u.s. ambassador and three other americans on those five sunday talk shows. and the republicans really have been going after her. and if the president stands firm and nominates her to be the next secretary of state, it will be a bruising confirmation hearing, there's no doubt about that. my p sense is, he probably wan
obama at a press conference today. the ambassador he was talking about is susan rice. here is an image of her in "the washington times." our question for you this morning is about the white house national security team. here is what steve tweets -- morris in san diego and joins us now, a republican color. caller: i have no confidence whatsoever in this national security team. i have less confidence a denture the president. i think this whole thing leads right to the white house. write to the oval office. president obama has made some statements already there are so contradictory there is no way he can explain the contradiction of his comments. you talk about a transparent administration -- yes, there are transparent. you can see right through them. there are as corrupt as any i have seen. i think this will lead to impeachment. i think he will be convicted of it as well. host: here is what bill says on twitter. charlie on the independent line. caller: i am not happy with senator mccain. he lost the election. he is still trying to get even for their loss of the election. he is a great s
'm jon scott. jenna: i'm jenna lee. susan rice is meeting with support bob corker of tennessee. she just wrapped up talks with susan collins of maine. that topic is benghazi. what did ambassador rice know about the terror attacks on the u.s. consulate that killed four americans on september 11? she faced a lot of criticism for comments made in the days following the attacks blaming it on a demonstration that got out of hand. by the way she wasn't the only one. that is something we heard a lot about in the days following at the attacks. today's meetings come after a first round of talks with senators john mccain, lindsey graham and kelly ayotte. and those meetings as we first reported to you yesterday did not appear to go very well. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is live in washington with more. >> reporter: thank you, jenna. ambassador rice is meeting two more republicans senators bob corker and susan collins. you're looking at stakeout position on capitol hill. ambassador rice is expected to meet with six senators. if she is nominated as next secretary of state she
susan rice benghazi statement comes in at and obviously general petraeus as well. or is it that perhaps the -- maybe the facts were kind of nuanced or perhaps maybe they were fudged a little bit? that's the real question. because i think most people realize, especially lawmakers on the intelligence committee know that sometimes the intelligence is simply not accurate the first time around. >> blake, is there an expectation this will bring closure or resolution from the right as robert points out whether or not republicans are going to be satisfied by this testimony? >> i think it really depends on what angle the republicans pursue in this case. if we go back initially when the incident first occurred of course mitt romney's initial reaction was to try to politicize this and say that the president was sympathizing with the other side. of course that didn't go over very well and then the next attempt was to try to say, well, the president was incompetent in terms of security but then it came out that the administration's attempt to get more funding for embassy security was cut by republic
in ambassador susan rice. what did they say? >> basically, they do not trust her. they think she should have known better. it looked to be a spontaneous response. they think it is clear there was an organized element. the white house is saying, and today we heard from a democrat who said the intelligence community reaffirmed that was the best information they had at the time. she was repeating the information they provided her. now those intelligence committees, they will hear from david petraeus. what do they want to know from former director petraeus? >> they said this was going to be specifically about benghazi. there is not going to be anything about this other investigation. this is about what sort of information he had as the cia director about the threat on the ground before the attack and why the information that was coming back to washington was so confusing. they want to know what sort of intelligence they were getting and why he made a mistake. >> what are you looking for in the coming weeks as the investigation goes forward? >> it is the partisan -- i think as the partisanship di
.n. ambassador susan rice's declassified talking points on the attack in benghazi. specifically why the role of terrorism wasn't reflected in them. democratic senator dianne feinstein, the chairwoman of the senate intelligence committee, says she'll investigate why the terrorist role wasn't included. still in an appearance on nbc's meet the press, feinstein said she was sure the white house didn't change the language in those talking points. >> with the allegation that the white house changed those talking points, that is false. there's only one thing that was changed. and i checked into this. i believe it to be absolute fact. and that was the word counsel was changed to mission. that's the only change that anyone in the white house made. and i have checked this out. >> republicans are accusing the obama administration of a cover-up and want ambassador rice to testify before congress. >> it's going to be one tough confirmation hearing. all right coming up, president obama on his way to cambodia right now. after an historic stop in myanmar earlier today. so, did the president accomplish what
circulated to other agencies. earlier today, lawmakers said that ambassador susan rice who said on the sunday talk show that benghazi was in response to an anti-islam video and a demonstration that spun out of control was simply using the best available intelligence at the time. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence committee. criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. >> critics say that ten days after the attack, director petraeus make clear to lawmakers today that there was absolutely no dow that benghazi was a terrorist attack could after the 21st of september, president obama went on tv and was reluctant to use the word terrorism when he was asked specifically whether benghazi qualified as an attack by al qaeda. cheryl: i have a quick question before we let you go. one of the things with how this handled was appearance. using the underground tunnels. hiding him from the crush of the
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)